1 / 29

Canada-U.S. Relations in the Arctic : Conflict and Cooperation

Canada-U.S. Relations in the Arctic : Conflict and Cooperation. Stéphane Roussel (UQAM) Conference Northern Sovereignty and Political Geography in North America Association for Canadian Studies in the United States Washington D.C., June 14 th , 2010. An Institutionalist point of view.

cody
Télécharger la présentation

Canada-U.S. Relations in the Arctic : Conflict and Cooperation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Canada-U.S. Relations in the Arctic : Conflict and Cooperation Stéphane Roussel (UQAM) Conference Northern Sovereignty and Political Geography in North America Association for Canadian Studies in the United States Washington D.C., June 14th, 2010

  2. An Institutionalist point of view • Institutions are the solution in Cnd-US relations • Historical foundations • Conflict resolution • Cooperation • Different proposal are floating in the air

  3. Borders in the North

  4. The Arctic RushDurham University (www.durham.ac.uk.ibru)

  5. The North American Arctic

  6. Current/Immediate Issues • Global warming • Social and Economical Development • Increasing demand for governmental services • Science/exploration (mapping)

  7. Current/Immediate Issues Sovereignty • In terms of TERRITORIAL integrity? Not really… • In terms of LAW INFORCEMENT? Probably… • In terms of domestic politics???

  8. Territorial Conflicts in the Canadian North Lincoln Sea Hans Is. Beaufort S. NWP

  9. The Beaufort Sea dispute

  10. Canada vs the U.S.62502 nautical miles area Canada U.S. Alaska 141 m. Yukon

  11. Territorial Conflicts • Very difficult/Impossible to solve - Resources - Creating a Precedent (NWP) - National Identity (highly sensitive)

  12. Mid/Long Term Concerns: Increasing Human Activities (potential) • Shipping • Tourism and extreme sports • Social and economical issues in local communities

  13. Mid/long-terms security concerns (potential) • Traffic monitoring • Pollution control • Search and Rescue • “Human” (societal) security • Terrorism • Organized crime (incl. illegal immigration !) • Low military threat • CF remain an essential platforms providers • Whole of Govt approach

  14. The Gulf of Maine Decision (ICJ 1984)

  15. Sovereignty, Identity, or Nation-Building? • The perfect political storm • Building an International identity • Building a national identity • National unity/national building • “Concealing” a continentalist/conservative agenda

  16. Highly sensitive(CDFAI – IRG annual poll 2008)

  17. How? • PUTTING SOVEREIGNTY ASIDE (for now), agree to disagree. • Incremental approach. • Focusing on « technical », non political, and non controversial problems (Search and rescue, traffic monitoring, pollution control, etc.).

  18. Who? • Unilateral? • Addressing public sensitivities toward Sovereignty • Local issues (ex.: human security) • Limited resources • Multilateral? • Existing Institutions (AC) and Networks (ICC) • Informal institutions (Illulisat, Chelsea) • Common problems. The Arctic is indivisible • But many problem are local

  19. Who? (2) • Bilateral? (in North America) • Strong historical record of cooperation • Strong historical division between Europe and North America • Many issues are local or regional rather than “global” • Interoperability • Small number of players • US Reluctance for multilateral agreement

  20. Institutional framework Three basic models of institutions: 1. Military Command 2. Civilian (public or private) authority 3. Joint Commission

  21. Military Command • NORAD (1957) • Binational Command • Operational responsibilities • Air/aerospace surveillance (monitoring, tracking, intercepting) • Maritime NORAD? • Limited functions

  22. Civilian authority • St.Lawrence Seaway Corporation • Binational Corporation (crown owned) • Seaway maintenance, traffic management • Limited functions on Security

  23. Joint Commission • Permanent Joint Board on Defence (1940) International Joint Commission (1909) • Officials (civ/mil) but non political • Producing recommendations • Large spectrum of issues covered • A Permanent Joint Board of the North? • An IJC for the North?

  24. Advantages • Creating an « habit of cooperation » • Confidence • Setting the table for a settlement of the bilateral conflicts in the North

  25. Presentation based on: Samantha L. ARNOLD and Stéphane ROUSSEL, “Expanding the Canada-US Security Regime to the North?”, in Sven G. HOLTSMARK and Brooke A. SMITH-WINDSOR (eds.), Security Prospects in the High North: Geostrategic Thaw or Freeze?, Rome, NATO Defense College Paper no 7, 2009: 58-80.

More Related